ALUVA MUNICIPALITY Vs. A.JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was before the learned Single Judge seeking a direction to the respondent-Municipality to pay the amounts demanded in Exhibit P1 bill and for setting aside Exhibit P8A, by which the Municipality resolved to pay the amounts as per the rate determined by the Government. The learned Single Judge directed the Municipality to quantify the amounts payable to the petitioner at the rate prevailing in the Public Works Department ("PWD" for short) at the time when Exhibit P2 agreement was entered into with consequential direction to make payment on that basis within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of the judgment. The Municipality, aggrieved by the judgment is before us in appeal; and the contempt has been filed by the respondent in the appeal, who complains of the non-compliance of the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal is that, as per Exhibit P2 agreement the preparation of design and estimate for a shopping complex was decided to be entrusted to the respondent. The respondent-architect also agreed to prepare the design, estimate, etc. at the rate fixed by the Kerala Government, which the Municipality agreed to pay as provided in Clause (2) of Exhibit P2. The agreement was entered into in the year 2008 and as early as on 4.10.2008, Exhibit P1 bill was submitted, claiming Rs.7,96,352.00. On repeated requests, the Municipality in its Council resolved to pay the amounts as fixed by the Government. The Municipality, before the learned Single Judge and also before us, relies on Exhibit R2(a) to contend that the Government sanctioned only 0.5% of the plan fund amount or Rs.60,000.00, whichever is less.

(3.) WE are unable to countenance the argument advanced by the Standing Counsel, to impugn the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Looking at the agreement Exhibit P2, the only inference that can be drawn from the express terms is that the respondent agreed to prepare the design and estimate for the rate fixed by the Kerala Government. True, the abovementioned Rules refer to that "fixed from time to time". That cannot be interpreted as at the rates fixed by the Government from contract to contract. Exhibit P9 may not be applicable at this point of time. The learned Single Judge also has only directed that the rates prevailing in the Public Works Department, at the time when Exhibit P2 agreement was entered into, has to be recognized as having been accepted by the Municipality and the respondent/architect.